=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #234
—May 22, 1991—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
PUSH COMES TO SHOVE.
Two researchers from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Curtis
Travis and Sheri Hester, have just published a new study of
chemical contamination of planet Earth and have confirmed what
many people already knew: the entire surface is polluted. What
separates Travis and Hester from other U.S. government
researchers before them is their stated belief that all this
pollution is taking its toll on human health: “We maintain that
ambient [normal, everyday] levels of pollution have risen to the
point where human health is being affected on a global scale.”
Furthermore, they conclude that planet-wide contamination seems
certain to increase because U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) does not even try to prevent the spread of low levels of
chemicals through air, water, and soil. EPA’s regulatory programs
have other goals.
EPA’s regulatory programs are aimed at protecting the
most-exposed individual near any given facility. Whether it’s
mercury released from a municipal solid waste incinerator or
radioactivity released into water from a low-level radioactive
waste dump, EPA’s regulations say, “Our goal is to protect the
individual who may be getting the biggest exposure.” EPA
therefore picks a spot where they believe the greatest exposure
will occur, then EPA establishes the concentration (in parts per
million) that they believe the individual can “safely” receive
during a lifetime of exposure. They define “safe” as “an exposure
that will kill no more than one in every million individuals so
exposed.” EPA then figures out, as best they can, how much
dilution will occur from the point of release to the place where
the most-exposed individual resides. Based on these goals (and
assumptions about dilution), EPA then issues a permit for a
particular polluter to release a certain amount of mercury (or
radioactivity, or other toxin) into air or water continuously.
Since the allowable release is set to protect the
maximally-exposed individual, EPA assumes all is well, never
considering the combined consequences of many “safe” releases.
One could raise doubts about many aspects of this approach to
pollution control, but the ORNL researchers highlighted only one
key problem: continuous releases of mercury (or radioactivity, or
other toxin), although they may protect the most-exposed
individual, do nevertheless allow toxic materials to enter the
environment continuously. Toxics released from thousands, or
perhaps millions, of different sources add up. Additional “adding
up” occurs in the food chain. A low concentration of mercury in
water turns into a slightly higher concentration in plants living
in that water, an even higher concentration in animals eating
those plants, and so on up the food chain. You may start off with
a small dose in air or water, but large predators at the top of
the food chain (big fish, big birds, wolves, humans, bears, etc.)
get a large dose.
Once they are released into the environment, chemicals seek out
the environmental medium (air, water, soil, or living things) in
which they are most soluble. Trichloroethylene (TCE) and benzene
are most soluble in air, so they tend to be found in air. DDT and
PCBs are most soluble in the fatty tissues of living things, so
they tend to move into the food chain and concentrate in living
things.
Transport through the atmosphere is the main way chemicals spread
around the globe; even fat-soluble chemicals initially move via
the atmosphere, then they enter food chains and concentrate in
animals (including humans). So most pollutants travel via the
atmosphere, but food is the main source of pollutants for humans.
Travis and Hester focus on PCBs, dioxins, benzene, mercury, and
lead, showing how “ambient” (normal, everyday background) levels
of these contaminants are high enough to make people sick. They
make the point–worth emphasizing–that they chose these
chemicals only because data exist for these chemicals. For the
vast majority of the 65,000 chemicals we dump into our air and
water routinely via incinerators, landfills, and intentional
releases from factory pipes and stacks, no data exist on how much
is dumped, where it goes, or what effects it may be having. EPA
has spent 20 years not gathering the necessary data.
PCBs. Although Congress banned PCBs in 1976 and EPA banned them
in 1977, an estimated 900 tons of PCBs cycle through the U.S.
atmosphere each year. Somewhere between 60% and 90% of the PCBs
entering the Great Lakes come from the atmosphere, according to
Travis and Hester. The average PCB concentration in breast milk
in the U.S. is 89 micrograms per kilogram. They calculate that
the background level of PCBs in the U.S. food supply creates a
cancer risk of 110 per million (using EPA’s method for
calculating cancer risks). That is to say, among every group of
one-million U.S. citizens [and there are 245 such groups in our
population of 245 million people], 110 individuals can be
expected to get cancer from normal, background PCB exposures.
Dioxins. Background dioxin levels in the American people are
lower than PCB levels, but dioxins are more potent carcinogens
than PCBs. The “background” cancer risk from dioxins, according
to Travis and Hester using EPA’s methods, is 210 per million.
Benzene. The background cancer risk from routine exposure to
benzene in the U.S. is 100 per million (or one in 10,000).
Mercury. Travis and Hester do not calculate a cancer risk for
mercury. However, they make the important point that mercury
released by coal combustion, by the chlor-alkali industry (which
produces chlorine and caustic soda), and by municipal waste
incinerators has introduced mercury into enormous areas far
distant from the places where the mercury was released. In remote
lakes in Michigan, 15% of the fish contain mercury concentrations
in excess of that state’s health advisory of 0.5 parts per
million (ppm). Approximately 30% of Wisconsin’s lakes and 50% of
Florida’s lakes contain fish with mercury levels that exceed
state health standards. Mercury seems to be becoming a global
problem, not limited to areas near point-sources.
Lead. Travis and Hester report that lead is affecting between 3
and 4 million U.S. children adversely (chiefly impaired cognitive
development–stunted mental growth) because of “our mismanagement
and heavy use of this toxic material.” An additional 400,000
fetuses in the U.S. are probably harmed by lead each year before
they are born, Travis and Hester report.
Travis and Hester calculated the total background cancer risk
from 11 chemicals, using data from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (which samples the U.S. food supply for chemicals
occasionally), using EPA’s method for calculating cancer risks.
They conclude that these 11 chemicals create a background cancer
risk of 1000 in a million, or one in a thousand. And of course
this does not consider consequences besides cancer. It omits
consideration of respiratory problems, reproductive and
developmental illnesses, nervous system disorders, damage to the
immune system, the increasing occurrence of multiple chemical
sensitivity (see RHWN #165, #220) and much
more.
Travis and Hester’s cancer analysis is based on a tiny part of
the full picture. They say, “The true extent of human exposure to
environmental pollution has never been quantified. For example,
the [EPA’s] human adipose [fatty] tissue survey has identified
only a very small fraction of the chemical mass found in human
adipose tissue.” In other words, no data exist for the vast
majority of chemical exposures that occur routinely. EPA has
studiously avoided gathering the data.
As for solving this problem, don’t look to EPA. Travis and Hester
say, “The only way to diminish global cycling of contaminants is
to decrease production of pollutants or to destroy pollutants
before they are released into the environment…. At present, the
most commonly used method to destroy pollutants is incineration.
However, emissions from incinerator stacks tend to release
pollutants directly into the atmosphere.” EPA has placed all its
eggs in the incineration basket and is aggressively trying to
force all states to site incinerators (see RHWN #142)–a strategy
guaranteed to make the problem of global contamination worse. As
for the suggestion to “decrease production of pollutants,” this
would require governmental intrusion into the manufacturing
place, compelling factory owners to avoid certain chemicals, or
to use less of them. Travis and Hester argue this is the only way
to prevent global contamination, with its attendant human health
damage. Thus it seems to come down to this: the health of humans
in general vs. the right of American manufacturers to call the
shots inside their own factories. Push really has come to shove.
Fireworks ahead.
Get: Curtis C. Travis and Sheri T. Hester, “Global Chemical
Pollution,” ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Vol. 25, No. 5
(May, 1991), pgs. 814-819.